M/S Flora Fun Games Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Flora Fun Games Private Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a show cause-cum-demand notice dated 03.11.2023, issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner became aware of an interim order passed by the High Court on 10.04.2024, which noted that the Supreme Court had allowed a transfer petition and consolidated 27 cases pending in various High Courts before it. The High Court had previously observed in a similar writ petition (CWP-7567-2022) that fresh writ petitions should not be entertained when the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court, granting liberty to parties to move appropriate applications before the apex court.

Held

The Court held that it should not entertain fresh writ petitions when the subject matter has been transferred to and is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court noted its previous stance in CWP-7567-2022, where it had observed that parties should move appropriate applications before the Supreme Court if their writ petitions were not included in the transferred bunch. The ratio decidendi is that once a matter of similar nature is transferred to the Supreme Court, the High Courts should refrain from entertaining new petitions on the same issue to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions. The Court disposed of the present writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending cases therein.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a fresh writ petition when the subject matter, involving multiple cases across various High Courts, has been transferred to and is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for adjudication? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, by filing this writ petition, implicitly sought adjudication on the merits of the show cause notice. However, the judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding why the High Court should proceed despite the Supreme Court's intervention. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, relied on the High Court's previous observations and interim orders indicating a policy of not entertaining fresh writ petitions when the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. They argued that the present petition should not be entertained in light of the Supreme Court's order transferring similar cases.